Newsletter No. 356
News-Analysis
August 13, 2006

 

TOKYO BACKS A CEASEFIRE IN THE LEBANON CRISIS -- NOW THAT WASHINGTON AGREES TOO

A month late, Tokyo has finally called for a ceasefire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict. What has changed? Well, now the Bush Administration and the Blair Administration have finally backed a ceasefire call themselves -- and so Tokyo has now come out from under its rock too.

However, this heroic gesture on Tokyo’s part was accompanied by a tragicomic statement by Foreign Minister Aso that said, “Japan has been calling for an immediate ceasefire to avoid further civilian victims and deterioration of the situation… Japan will continue to call upon all parties concerned, based on the resolution, to realize an immediate ceasefire, to immediately agree upon the political framework.”

So, Japan “will continue to” call for a ceasefire, eh? Maybe I missed something, but I’m not aware of any previous call by Tokyo for an “immediate ceasefire” -- the previous calls were only for “restraint.”

Aso’s statement is unlikely to fool any serious observer of Japanese policy, but it is useful in that it demonstrates Tokyo’s belated embarrassment over their own policy in this matter. Although they were hardly alone in this respect, it would be fair to describe Tokyo’s position on the month-long war in Lebanon and northern Israel as both cowardly and unprincipled. In deference to Washington, they simply stood silently by as a small, weak nation was being destroyed -- nothing to be proud of here.

The root of the problem, of course, was the outrageous stance taken by the Bush Administration, which posed as a peacemaker, but was really quite gung ho for Israel to destroy Hizballah through military action. A call for a “ceasefire” was precisely what the Bush Administration has been trying to sabotage. Tokyo knew this, and was willing to tacitly help the US effort by saying very little in public.

But the Israeli military campaign did not turn out to be the cakewalk that some initially imagined, and it turned out that Hizballah could give as well as get. Much of the Israeli public and political establishment has been stunned by the military effectiveness of Hizballah, which is unlike the usual one-sided victories that they had become accustomed to when fighting regular military forces in the Arab world. Prime Minister Olmert has seen his approval ratings drop under criticism that he has mismanaged the military campaign, although the general idea of somehow destroying Hizballah is still very popular in Israel -- and likely to remain so.

President Bush has now backed a UN ceasefire. According to Steven Clemons at The Washington Note, the new US position was largely the result of clever French diplomacy. True or not, Washington is now calling for a ceasefire, as it earlier had refused to do.

Nevertheless, Bush continues to evidence a flawed understanding of political reality in West Asia, saying that the new UN resolution aims to “put an end to Iran and Syria’s efforts to hold the Lebanese people hostage to their own extremist agenda.”

There are three big things wrong in this one little phrase:

1) While it is true that both Iran and Syria have been supporters of Hizballah, his implication that the Lebanese militia is simply a remote-control device of these foreign powers is probably not the case. Hizballah is an independent organization that almost certainly made its own decisions in this matter -- although they may or may not have asked for a green-light from Damascus and/or Tehran before proceeding with the initial raid on northern Israel.

2) If Bush were to listen to the “Lebanese people” about whom they blame for the current tragedy, they would express some reservations about Hizballah, but would strongly condemn Israel. Public opinion surveys in Lebanon have made it perfectly clear that the majority of Lebanese see Israel, not Hizballah, as the root of the problem. It would be nice if Bush -- who seems happy to use the “Lebanese people” as his rhetorical propaganda tool -- would actually listen to what the “Lebanese people” are really saying.

3) Although Damascus and Tehran have had a strategic alliance of sorts in regard to Lebanon policy, this could hardly be described accurately as a common “extremist agenda.” Syria is ruled by a secular, Bathist, Alawi regime. Iran is ruled by religious Shia clerics. At an ideological level, they are entirely different breeds. What pushes them together is not a common ideology or an “extremist agenda,” but rather pure realpolitik concerns. They need each other to survive in a region overshadowed by the informal alliance of the US and Israel. In the same way that Bush probably sincerely believed in a Saddam-Bin Ladin connection, he now apparently believes that Iran and Syria really have a common ideological agenda. President Bush is simply ignorant -- and worse yet -- he doesn’t even seem very curious to find out the truth of matters. In all likelihood, Bush shares that peculiar American ideological disease that tends to see all critics of the United States as sharing a common anti-American agenda. It’s a childish and illogical perspective, but its power and influence in American political culture should not be underestimated: Those who criticize the good (represented on earth by the United States) must themselves be evil -- and even an “Axis of Evil,” continually plotting dark, wicked schemes against the Land of Liberty.

It is doubtful that many MOFA bureaucrats share these misconceptions of President Bush, but the Koizumi foreign policy has been consistent in putting the US-Japan Security Alliance before almost everything else; including simple human decency. Due to its economic links with Iran and the Persian Gulf, Tokyo has not always obeyed Washington in the manner that has been demanded, but in regard to Iraq and Lebanon -- where Tokyo’s economic interests are not so crucial -- the pattern of simply following Washington’s lead (no matter how ideologically blind and self-defeating it may be) has been clearly perceptible.

It will be a welcome day when Tokyo begins showing some political principle other than the worship of power in its foreign policies in the Islamic world. Japan used to believe in peace. If it is still something regarded as being of some value, then Tokyo will have to do better than this.

---

STATEMENT BY MR. TARO ASO ON THE ADOPTION OF UNSC RESOLUTION 1701 ON LEBANON
August 12, 2006

Japan welcomes the unanimous adoption of the Security Council Resolution 1701 calling for a full cessation of hostilities by Israel and Hizbollah as well as for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the political framework stated in this resolution.

Japan has been calling for an immediate ceasefire to avoid further civilian victims and deterioration of the situation, and has been urging the parties concerned to make their utmost efforts and to exercise self-restraint towards a solution of the problem. Recognizing the necessity for the Security Council to address the issue promptly, Japan has also closely coordinated with the concerned countries for early adoption of the draft resolution.

Japan will continue to call upon all parties concerned, based on the resolution, to realize an immediate ceasefire, to immediately agree upon the political framework stated in the resolution, and to exert maximum effort to restore stability in the region.

Japan will continue to contribute actively to the efforts to build mid- and ling-term stability in the region as a whole when it is restored based on the resolution.

---

EDITORIAL: LEBANON IN CRISIS
By the Asahi Shinbun

Nearly a month since Israeli troops began attacks on Lebanon, little progress has been made toward a cease-fire. The military action was prompted by the seizure of two Israeli soldiers in a July 12 raid across the border by the Shiite-affiliated Islamic militant group Hezbollah, based in Lebanon. Already the fighting has killed more than 1,000 men, women and children in both countries.

Israel's extreme retaliatory strikes have inflicted major physical damage on Lebanon, particularly in its southern cities. In addition, out of Lebanon's four million people, one in four are now refugees. The fighting has cut off assistance from United Nations agencies and other aid groups. Many bodies of civilians killed in the crossfire lay untouched where they fell. These and other tragic reports reach us daily.

Though the world wants an immediate cease-fire, a U.N. Security Council draft resolution toward that end proposed by the United States, Britain, France and others failed to pass.

The motion sought to deploy multinational forces into southern Lebanon with the goal of halting Hezbollah rocket fire and other aggression. The main condition was that both sides suspend hostilities.

However, the proposal did not incorporate a basic demand that the invading Israeli troops withdraw. This point drew fierce opposition from the Lebanese government and Arab countries, pushing the process into another round of arguments.

Meanwhile, an Israeli government Cabinet meeting declared its intent to carry on with its strategy of military attacks. On television, the leader of Hezbollah responded with an appeal for all-out resistance against Israeli forces. At this rate, the fighting will only worsen. Israel's aim is to destroy Hezbollah as a military force. This offensive, however, does not seem to be making much progress in that direction.

For Hezbollah's part, while the group appears to have expanded its support within Lebanon, it must certainly see the futility of attempting to extract concessions from Tel Aviv by firing a steady stream of rockets into Israeli territory.

Why has the international community not taken more effective joint action to press for an immediate cease-fire? The main reason is that Hezbollah is viewed as a terrorist organization, despite the fact that several of its politicians are also ministers in Lebanon's government. Internationally, there is a strong desire to use this occasion to crush the group once and for all. This view is shared not only by Israelis, but also by many in power in Washington, London and elsewhere.

The conflict can no longer be seen solely as clashes between Hezbollah and Israel. There clearly can be no lasting solution to the crisis without action on the Palestinian problem, the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights in Syria and other long-standing issues.

Bearing in mind the complications caused by the historical standoff between the Arabs and the Israelis, efforts must be steadily advanced to create a cease-fire and bring some stability to this troubled part of the world.

The first step in that direction is to pass a Security Council resolution. It will not be easy, and success will demand flexibility from the United States and Britain which are Israel's supporters.

Right now, the issue largely boils down to the question of who can persuade Hezbollah to stop its military action. The only practical choice for such a mission is Syria, a country that wields some influence over the Hezbollah organization.

In 1982, Israeli forces crossed over into Lebanon, and that situation escalated into an all-out war that embroiled the Syrian troops stationed there at the time. Every possible effort must be made to avoid a repeat of that tragic chapter in Middle East history.